After Confederate statues fall, is Lincoln Memorial next?

https://www.reporternews.com ^ | March 9, 2019 | Jerry Patterson

[Bull Snipe]

Slavery was dying around the edges. But not in the 15 States were slavery was legal. The 1850 census records 3.2 million slaves in 15 out of 31 state. The 1860 census records 3.9 million slaves in 15 out of 34 states. The slave population was growing, not dwindling in the states were slavery was legal.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes he f***ing did. *YOU PEOPLE* stop lying about it.

He said so himself in his first inaugural address. Had he opposed it, he would have refrained from bringing attention to it.

[rockrr]

He didn’t urge it’s passage. Stop f**ing lying.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

Fact, Davis only offered to free slaves in exchange for diplomatic recognition after Nov 1864. At that time the Confederacy had less than 6 months to live. “Of course you lost cause revisionists aren’t interested in facts - just your dogma.”

Of course Davis had gained the consent of the Confederate Congress before that and the diplomatic mission was delayed by the naval blockade. Davis himself had wanted to make the offer earlier but had to gain the consent of the Confederate Congress first. It is you PC Revisionists who aren't interested in facts - just your dogma.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

Slavery was dying around the edges. But not in the 15 States were slavery was legal. The 1850 census records 3.2 million slaves in 15 out of 31 state. The 1860 census records 3.9 million slaves in 15 out of 34 states. The slave population was growing, not dwindling in the states were slavery was legal.

False - as usual with you. The slave population was growing. The percentage of total free families owning slaves in the Upper South had declined. The percentage of the black population which were freedmen was climbing steadily. This is the same process that happened elsewhere as industrialization took hold.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Every northern state, including the Keystone state, voted to enshrine slavery into the Constitution of the United States."

Only after some Southerners threatened "no Union" if they refused.
At the same time those Northerners were passing laws to abolish slavery in their own states.

jeffersondem: "But the northern states did not enshrine slavery into the Constitution gratuitously: they had good reason.
It was thought to be in their economic and political best self interest."

A typical Lost Cause Marxist explanation.
If you could go back to 1787 and ask them directly, here's what they'd say:

"We did it... in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

If you then asked them about their "economic and political best self interest", they would look at you quizzically and respond, "You mean promote the general Welfare and insure domestic Tranquility, don't you?"

If you pressed them, saying, "but isn't it all just to line your own pockets with Federal money?" they might invite you to duel, or just remind you that of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, over half lost their lives and/or fortunes as a result.

"We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Over half lost their lives or fortunes, but none their sacred honor.

It would take the later "genius" of a Karl Marx combined with the bitterness of Lost Causers to see in all that mere "economic and political self-interest."

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: ". The slave population was growing.
The percentage of total free families owning slaves in the Upper South had declined."

In 1860 slave populations in Maryland and Delaware were declining and in Missouri declining as a percent of the population.
One reason for declining slave numbers was increasing freed-black populations in those states.

Another was the continued rapid increase in slaves in the Deep Cotton South.
That increase was so great it changed the percent of Deep South slaves to total slaves from 50% in 1840 to 60% in 1860.
In 1860 both the numbers of slaves and market prices for slaves were increasing to all-time highs, due to the booming cotton economy.

So, bottom line, suggestions that slavery was dying out in Border South states might have some merit, except that in 1860 there was not even a breath of a hint of abolitionism in those states.

And one reason for slavery's relative decline in Border States was the booming demand for slaves in the Deep Cotton South.
It's no coincidence that in those Deep South states where slavery was most important, the 1860 election of "Ape" Lincoln's "Black Republicans" was enough to drive them to declare secession and war on the United States.

FLT-bird: "This is the same process that happened elsewhere as industrialization took hold."

And in the Northern US, but nowhere was the investment in slavery more important & rewarding than in the Deep South, and nowhere was resistance to abolition more intense.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." -- Mississippi Reasons for Secession 1861

That's not "revisionism", that's just history.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Oh I've provided you with answers.
Lots of them.
Its obvious your tactic is an intellectually dishonest one of trying to ask endless questions we both know the answers to even though I have provided those answers numerous times in these threads."

In fact, FLT-bird's ratio of actual facts presented to BS talk like this is quite low.
Somehow FLT-bird seems to think he can win a debate by repeatedly claiming to have already won it.

[BroJoeK]

ping for my post #307 on the question: was slavery dying out in the South in 1860?

Short answer: yes and no.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Total nonsense.
Lincoln inherited an established government, an established judiciary which he ignored whenever it suited him, an established treasury, an established navy etc etc
Despite that he trampled on constitutional rights of citizens to a vastly greater extent than Davis did in the Confederacy."

Or, to put FLT-bird's argument in simpler terms:

• Lincoln was bad, bad, baaaaaaaad, I tell you!

• Confederates were good, good, gooooooood, don't you know?

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "I understand the temptation to send it right back up her stovepipe, but I hope you don’t fall into tit~for~tat!"

Sure, one has to admire FLT-bird for enthusiasm & persistence, but there are many notable weaknesses in (presumably) his presentations here.

One is his very high ratio of BS to facts, another is refusal to admit or address facts which contradict his BS.
You yourself have called out his cowardice in that, and I think the point should be reinforced at least occasionally.

[Bull Snipe]

Based on the 1850-1860 Census date. The following increases are seen:

free blacks in free states: 29,900 ( + 13%)

free blacks in slave states: 22,600 ( + 9%)

Total slave population in U.S.: 700,000 ( + 17.9%)

Yes, the number of freemen increasing in the U.S. But at a slower rate than the number of slaves.
While the number of slave owing families declined, the number of slaves owned by the slave owning families had increased.

To me it appears that the numbers do not support your contention that slavery was dying in the United States.

[Bull Snipe]

It is you PC Revisionists who aren’t interested in facts - just your dogma.

Does not in any way alter the fact the Confederacy was crashing down around Jefferson Davis at the time he finely acted to offer emancipation in exchange for diplomatic recognition. Still a last ditch effort to save a dying Confederacy.

[NKP_Vet]

“Now there’s your Lost Cause Marxist speaking like a true left-winger.”

Lincoln was a big government socialist and that’s why he’s loved by democrats. The democrats of the middle 18th Century believed in States Rights and a limited government. Lincoln and his cohorts believed in massive Federal government with all power centralized in Washington DC.

Jefferson Davis was a conservative. Lincoln was a big government liberal.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, *YOU* stop your f***ing lying! Abraham Lincoln absolutely and unequivocally *SUPPORTED* the passage of the PRO-SLAVERY Corwin Amendment.

I keep pointing this out to you people because you need to have this unpleasant fact shoved right back up your @$$!

What your ancestors did was evil. You didn't murder people in the South because you cared about slaves. You murdered them because a f***ing dictator had cleverly manipulated your ancestors into stopping those people from getting away from Washington DC's control of their economy.

Pretending it was about slavery was just propaganda, and Lincoln would lock up anyone who challenged his claims. Since he involved so many northern people in the evil done to the South, they had no choice but to parrot the claims that they were "dying to make men free." This is laughable because these were men whom they would rather see dead if they had their choice about it, because virtually everyone in the north hated the black men at this point in history.

Lies about what happened have been put forth ever since, and inconvenient facts that clarify what happened, such as Lincoln's support for the Corwin Amendment, or the Warships "supply mission", are omitted because they reveal what was really behind the invasion of the South. *MONEY*.

[DiogenesLamp]

The way these people approach any discussion of the Civil War is to immediately introduce slavery as the primary issue of the war.

Lincoln's support for the Corwin amendment along with the US Constitutions guarantee that slaves would be returned to their masters, conclusively proves that Slavery was not the motivating force for the Union invasion of the South.

Allowing them to keep the discussion focused on slavery is a mistake. Slavery is a fig leaf for the evil thing they did in murdering people because the Washington DC power Cabal wanted to keep control of the Economic output of the Southern states.

The war was about economic power and who would control it. Lincoln's support for the Corwin Amendment indicates that the Union would clearly tolerate slavery indefinitely. What they would not tolerate is the South competing with the Northern power barons for European money and trade.

Money. Money. Money. Money.

That is the only thing the Civil War was fought about.

Slavery is just a lying deflection tactic to avoid discussing the truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

Jefferson Davis was a conservative. Lincoln was a big government liberal.

Big Government Liberals have been running Washington DC ever since. They are kept in power by the New York controlled propaganda system we know as "Mainstream Media" and they are kept in power because Washington DC spending and economic policy keeps the Wealthy people of New York in control of their wealth and power.

The evil Deep State cabal we are facing today, was put into power as a result of them electing their puppet dictator Lincoln.

We are literally facing the exact same enemy that the Southern states had to face back in 1861. New York and Washington DC basically run the United States of America.

[central_va]

The Civil War changed into “freeing the black man” post Emancipation Executive Order and was the biggest bait and switch in the history of the USA.

[BroJoeK]

NKP_VET: "Lincoln was a big government socialist and that’s why he’s loved by democrats."

I can't speak for delusional Democrats, but as for "big government socialist", that's a total lie.

NKP_VET: "The democrats of the middle 18th Century believed in States Rights and a limited government.
Lincoln and his cohorts believed in massive Federal government with all power centralized in Washington DC."

Lies that Democrats told each other then, just as they lie to each other today -- lies are what Democrats do.

NKP_VET: "Jefferson Davis was a conservative.
Lincoln was a big government liberal."

Rubbish, when Democrats, including Jefferson Davis, were in power in the 1850s they acted just like Democrats today, including:

1. Nearly doubled Federal spending between 1852 and 1857 -- during peacetime.

2. Doubled the national debt between 1856 and 1860 -- during peacetime.

3. Spent 20% of 1852 Federal revenues on the Gadsden Purchase, negotiated by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis to provide a Southern route for the transcontinental railroad.
   Davis also owned shares in the Vicksburg-base railroad company which planned to build that Southern route.
   DC swamp, anyone?

4. Sent US Army troops -- commanded by future Confederate Gen. Albert Sydney Johnson -- to suppress the Mormon Rebellion in 1857 -- oh, yeh, those freedom-loving Democrats, they were all for self government and states rights, except when they weren't.

5. Sent Federal troops commanded by Col. RE Lee to protect the Texas border against "Indian savages" and "murderous banditti" -- a failure huge enough to be mentioned in Texas' "Reasons for Secession" document.

6. Supported the 1854 Ostend Manifesto for military conquest of Cuba, to increase US slave territories.

In 1860 Republicans responded in their party platform with, among others, this plank:

"6.That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government;
that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans;
while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded."

So Democrats then were like Democrats today -- it's all a Big Lie.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Hindsight is 20/20, and what you've shown is historians writing a century after the war. What I want to see is one southern leader, in the 30 years before the war, saying that slavery was a dying institution. Here's what Georgia said, in their Declaration of Causes of Secession:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

Hardly the statement of people who think the institution is fading. More like a statement of an inability to even imagine a world without slavery.